DMC Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 Beggars can't be choosers... So the Khashoggi murder continues to get more and more farcical. Apparently the assassins used a body double: Quote CNN has obtained exclusive law enforcement surveillance footage, part of the Turkish government's investigation, that appears to show the man leaving the Saudi consulate by the back door, wearing Khashoggi's clothes, a fake beard, and glasses. The same man was seen in Khashoggi's clothing, according to the Turkish case, at the city's world-famous Blue Mosque just hours after the journalist was last seen alive entering the consulate on October 2. So I couldn't sleep last night and Jumanji was on TV (the 90s one with Robin Williams). I turned it on when Bonnie Hunt was talking about how everybody suspected Alan's (Williams) father killed him and cut him up to pieces when Alan disappeared. Got me thinking, maybe the Saudis should say Khashoggi got lost inside Jumanji. It's as credible as everything else they've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 Good title! I couldn’t think of anything I really liked this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 27 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said: Well, if we're talking best-case scenarios, I'd trade the House majority for a Senate every day of the week and twice on Sundays. If we're talking most realistic best-case scenarios, then I defer to your point. The Senate gets judicial appointments, so yes, its more important in the current environment; but the House has its own benefits too. Because the House is strictly majoritarian it means Democrats can pass as many "messaging" bills as they want for two years. They'll all die in the Senate of course, but the point is to show more concretely what they want to do on policy to energize voters for 2020. Yes, Trump can drown out a lot of other news; but a headline like "House passes Medicare-For-All" is still going to last for a while. That can't happen in the Senate because of the legislative filibuster. The House can also more easily get involved in lawsuits than the Senate can because its an easier vote. And of course either chamber can conduct significant oversight of an Administration if it chooses to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 Lets not forget Speaker of the House is third in line for the Presidency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 Any word on Pelosi's certainty for the Speaker should Dems take back the house? There was talk of discontent before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 26 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: Any word on Pelosi's certainty for the Speaker should Dems take back the house? There was talk of discontent before It's going to happen. New people will vote against her but it won't be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawkcabi Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 36 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: Any word on Pelosi's certainty for the Speaker should Dems take back the house? There was talk of discontent before 9 minutes ago, Mexal said: It's going to happen. New people will vote against her but it won't be enough. I'm not enthusiastic about this, it's time for new leadership. However, conciliation is it will really piss off the right ...and yet the worm turns one more time as it boosts up one of their most hated boogeymen and will add motivation for the repubs in 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 Trump administration widens Obamacare escape hatch for red states https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/22/trump-administration-obamacare-873318 Quote The Trump administration said Monday it will give states significant new ability to opt out of Obamacare requirements, a move that could boost cheaper health plans with fewer protections for pre-existing conditions. Many health insurance experts warn the move could essentially create two health insurance markets — one for healthy people who opt for the cheaper plans and another for sicker patients who will face spiraling costs. The Trump administration is expanding the scope of so-called state innovation waivers, an Obamacare program that lets state tinker with their health insurance markets. Republicans have long complained that the Obama administration took an overly prescriptive approach to the waiver program, limiting the ability of red states to oversee their markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, drawkcabi said: ...and yet the worm turns one more time as it boosts up one of their most hated boogeymen and will add motivation for the repubs in 2020. OTOH, any new Democratic leader would become another boogeyman within weeks. I also have to keep reminding myself that it's pointless to take what the right says or thinks into account. I'm all for change though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 14 minutes ago, Rippounet said: OTOH, any new Democratic leader would become another boogeyman within weeks. It still would take quite a while for a new leader to elicit such entrenched attitudes simply based on name ID - over half the country is not going to have an unfavorable opinion of a new face for some time. Moreover, half of Democrats think she should be replaced. Anyway, as others said, I'm not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 Nate Silver said earlier that this is an interesting 'wave' - in that if the polls are off by a little bit you get MASSIVE changes.https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1054360814931591168 If they're about right, the Dems take the House, lose more seats in the Senate, and have a decent-sized majority in the House. If they're 3 points off on the Republican side, Dems don't take the House or the Senate (or it's a nailbiter for the House). If they're off 3 points on the Dem side, Dems have a massive House majority - close to veto-proof - and take the Senate. This illustrates the weird nature of the gerrymandering that Republicans did - where they made it capable of withstanding a 9-10 point swing, but anything more is a tidal wave. It also illustrates that as good an election as this appears to be, it's not like Dems will have the House for the next 8 years like Republicans did from 2010-2018, because this is the level it takes for Dems to actually win the House now - they need to win 55-45% or so. As Ezra Klein said - how long will Democrats accept being the majority and not having political power? As much as people decry violence as a solution, we are quickly coming to a point where there are no other solutions that are viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Kilmore Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 I think this is the crisis we are heading towards. I hope, that with the march of time, generational shifts take place soon and maybe that can be enough to derail this process, but I feel my hope for that sinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 That's why this election is so important, and why articles like that are premature though. If Democrats do well at the state level this November, they will be, for the most part, the ones in office when redistricting in 2021. Which means they would have the power to make the House more representative in again in numerous key states. Democrats may lose the House in 2020, since it'll still be the current lines, though that'll probably mean a bad election anyway where Trump wins reelection; but long term there isn't an issue again. If Democrats do well this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 29 minutes ago, DMC said: It still would take quite a while for a new leader to elicit such entrenched attitudes simply based on name ID - over half the country is not going to have an unfavorable opinion of a new face for some time. You're the expert here, but I've seen how quickly Ocasio-Cortez became a new boogeyman for the American right. I'm fully confident they can do that with pretty much anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Fez said: That's why this election is so important, and why articles like that are premature though. If Democrats do well at the state level this November, they will be, for the most part, the ones in office when redistricting in 2021. No, they won't. Most state congresses only last for two years, and they have to do well against an incumbent POTUS and whatnot. They won't see gains there for at best another two years (so 2022), and by then who knows what state we will be in? And that STILL doesn't change things like the makeup of the Senate or how the judiciary will be completely fucked by then. 1 minute ago, Fez said: Which means they would have the power to make the House more representative in again in numerous key states. Democrats may lose the House in 2020, since it'll still be the current lines, though that'll probably mean a bad election anyway where Trump wins reelection; but long term there isn't an issue again. If Democrats do well this time. Keep in mind that in order to change the districting they have to hold the line through 2020 AND hold the line against any legal challenges. Guess who will be making those judicial decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, Fez said: That's why this election is so important, and why articles like that are premature though. If Democrats do well at the state level this November, they will be, for the most part, the ones in office when redistricting in 2021. Which means they would have the power to make the House more representative in again in numerous key states. Democrats may lose the House in 2020, since it'll still be the current lines, though that'll probably mean a bad election anyway where Trump wins reelection; but long term there isn't an issue again. If Democrats do well this time. Speaking of making the House more representative, what's the word on increasing the number of members? Our population has grown substantially since the number of representatives was last increased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Rippounet said: You're the expert here, but I've seen how quickly Ocasion-Cortez became a new boogeyman for the American right. I'm fully confident they can do that with pretty much anyone. Granted, it's an old poll (August 2-6), but at that point 62% of voters had no opinion of Ocasio-Cortez. There's a difference between being used as a boogeyman for the politically informed to get your boots on the ground amped up to fight the great socialist satan and using Pelosi in almost all competitive House (and even some Senate) races for over decade as a reason to vote against the Dem candidate. 6 minutes ago, Kalbear said: No, they won't. Most state congresses only last for two years, and they have to do well against an incumbent POTUS and whatnot. They won't see gains there for at best another two years (so 2022), and by then who knows what state we will be in? First, the governors elected this cycle will be presiding during redistricting. Second, I don't know how you know "they won't see gains there" until 2022. You're right that many seats in both chambers at the state level will still be up in 2020, but none of us know what the results of those will be - and regardless making significant gains this cycle is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 1 minute ago, DMC said: First, the governors elected this cycle will be presiding during redistricting. That's fair, but given some of the fairly amazingly bad tactics used in many of the states, I'm not particularly counting on the governors to be Democrats after this cycle. 1 minute ago, DMC said: Second, I don't know how you know "they won't see gains there" until 2022. You're right that many seats in both chambers at the state level will still be up in 2020, but none of us know what the results of those will be - and regardless making significant gains this cycle is important. I'm saying that the change in redistricting won't occur (if it occurs at all) until 2022. They won't kick in for the 2020 election for either the federal or state level. Meaning the soonest you'll start seeing actual changes in gerrymandering will not be until 2022 at the very earliest. It's certainly important to win now. It isn't clear to me that those wins will translate into a 2020 win, and 2020 is the more important win to change districting. This year, while it matters, doesn't tend to matter for the redistricting values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 13 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said: Speaking of making the House more representative, what's the word on increasing the number of members? Our population has grown substantially since the number of representatives was last increased. It is an act that was last done in 1929, meaning that it would need to be voted on by House, Senate, and signed by the POTUS. Good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 Finally, Trump hit 43% in the 538 aggregate, his highest since right after his inauguration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.